In an attempt to halt a subpoena of the EPA, Texas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson stirred the pot by questioning the motives and qualifications of her Texas colleague Lamar Smith and a prominent scientific researcher.

After the Republican-controlled House Science, Space, and Technology Committee formally announced that it would summon the EPA to release specific documents, Johnson sent a letter to Chairman Lamar Smith in opposition.

In the letter, she claimed that Smith used Dr. Jim Enstrom, a former UCLA epidemiologist whose removal made him a cause celebre in the conservative community, as an example of a “legitimate researcher” but went on to attack his credentials.

Dr. Jim Enstrom (Official photo)

Johnson, the committee’s top Democrat, noted that Dr. Enstrom has done studies that were funded by the tobacco industry and that he has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the industry.

Dr. Enstrom rebutted Johnson’s statement and wrote a strongly worded letter to the San Antonio Republican and the Dallas Democrat.

Dr. Enstrom stated that contrary to Johnson’s beliefs, he is an ideal legitimate researcher.

“Because of my education and my subsequent 43-year year scientific career, I have a deep understanding of elementary particles, fine particles, epidemiology, statistical analysis, the ACS, and CPS data. These factors qualify me as a legitimate researcher who should be allowed to independently analyze the CPS 2 data heavily relied upon by EPA,” said Enstrom.

Johnson claimed that Enstrom was terminated by UCLA, but Enstrom stated that he is currently in the process of suing the university for wrongful termination. If he wins the case, Dr. Enstrom will regain his faculty position.

After further defending himself against Johnson’s claims, Dr. Enstrom asked that Johnson immediately withdraw her defamatory statements and identify who originated the statements.

In a formal letter to Johnson, Smith explained his reasoning for the EPA subpoena, stating that only a select few are allowed to access or analyze the tax-payer funded data that is used to support the Clean Air Act regulations.

In 2011, Gina McCarthy promised to provide the data to the House Science Committee, but two years later and after being confirmed as EPA’s Administrator, McCarthy has failed to follow through.

Smith clarified in his letter to Johnson that the subpoena is based on “the principle of transparency, which require that the information used to justify major, costly regulations be open and available to the public.”

Smith also claimed that transparency is vital to the integrity of the scientific process, which requires study results to be independently verifiable.

“Ensuring public access to taxpayer funded-data that are used in regulations supports good science and good government,” said Smith. “Consistent with this principle, once the committee receives the data sets, I intend to make them publicly available. Certainly, the principle of an open and transparent government is not supported by policies that allow certain groups access to the information, but prevent access to others. This is precisely what is now occurring and should be corrected.”